4.8 Article

Interrogating accessibility of telomeric sequences with FRET-PAINT: evidence for length-dependent telomere compaction

期刊

NUCLEIC ACIDS RESEARCH
卷 49, 期 6, 页码 3371-3380

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkab067

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health, USA [1R15GM109386, 1R15GM123443]
  2. NIH [1R15GM123443]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The accessibility of telomeric DNA is influenced by its length, with longer telomeres forming more compact structures that are less accessible to binding molecules. Intermediate regions of telomeric DNA were found to be more accessible compared to the ends, suggesting a gradient of accessibility along the telomere length. These findings highlight the importance of telomere structure in regulating accessibility to critical genomic sites.
Single-stranded telomeric overhangs are similar to 200 nucleotides long and can form tandem G-quadruplex (GQ) structures, which reduce their accessibility to nucleases and proteins that activate DNA damage response. Whether these tandem GQs further stack to form compact superstructures, which may provide better protection for longer telomeres, is not known. We report single-molecule measurements where the accessibility of 24-144 nucleotide long human telomeric DNA molecules is interrogated by a short PNA molecule that is complementary to a single GGGTTA repeat, as implemented in the FRET-PAINT method. Binding of the PNA strand to available GGGTTA sequences results in discrete FRET bursts which were analyzed in terms of their dwell times, binding frequencies, and topographic distributions. The binding frequencies were greater for binding to intermediate regions of telomeric DNA compared to 3'- or 5'-ends, suggesting these regions are more accessible. Significantly, the binding frequency per telomeric repeat monotonically decreased with increasing telomere length. These results are consistent with telomeres forming more compact structures at longer lengths, reducing accessibility of these critical genomic sites.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据